HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061317.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
,2
Tuesday, Maya', 2006 may
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 101h Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton •
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Monica Mika, Brad Mueller, Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Don Carroll,
Jesse Hein,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, April 18, 2006,
was approved as read.
The following case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1544
APPLICANT: Veterinary Properties LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2948; Pt SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(70 foot monopole cellular tower).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 0 Street and 1/4 mile west of 35th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to June 6, 2006.
The applicant is attempting to collocate on an existing facility. If the collocation works this application will
be withdrawn.
The following cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James & Cheri Scott
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Replat and subdivision of Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots, located in the Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District.
LOCATION: North of CR 72 off of Cornerstone Way within Shiloh Estates subdivision
which is located between the Towns of Windsor and Severance.
Chad Auer had to abstain from this vote due to not being present at the hearing of Case AmPF-354.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1551
APPLICANT: Great Western Oil & Gas Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 of Section 26, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
1
Anviant ark— 54,24,104
029D0- /3(7
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a oil
and gas production facility(eight oil and gas wells and one tank battery)
in the I-1 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: 'h mile west of CR 23; %]mile south of CR 66.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Michael Miller seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Paul Branham,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The following cases will be Heard:
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Wendi Inloes
PROPOSAL: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 20, Road Impact Fees.
Wendi (noes, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed Code Changes. The Department
of Planning Services in conjunction with the Department of Public Works is proposing changes to Chapter
20 of the Weld County Code regarding road impact fees. These changes include new land use types,
along with corresponding fees and definitions. Additionally there have been changes added for
clarification.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on Table 21, the road impact fee schedule and what the background
to determine the fees was along with some of the new ones. Perry Eisenach, Department of Public
Works, indicated they used the same formulas that Duncan and Associates had used when the original
impact fees were done. Those formulas take into account traffic generated from the proposed
development and the estimated cost of the County's Strategic Roadway improvements. Data is used from
the ITE manual that contains traffic information for different kinds of uses. The same protocol was used.
Mr. Ochsner asked if the number of animals was taken into account or is it just specific to the use. Mr.
Eisenbach stated they would pay the amount based on the size of the facility. A larger facility would be
more since they would generate more traffic. This is a part of the formula that is used.
Michael Miller asked if the fees were per thousand square feet of the buildings. Mr. Miller added that the
light manufacturing versus the heavy manufacturing is significant and what was the reasoning behind this.
Mr. Eisenach stated the heavy manufacturing has larger bulk items in the facility. The traffic is not
greater on a daily basis in heavy manufacturing. The building to store the equipment in is larger.
Tom Holton asked about the difference between the single family and multi-family detached homes. Ms.
Mika, Department of Planning Services, stated the number of individuals residing in multi-family structures
vs. single family structures is different. The numbers will not be higher since multi-family typically has
senior citizens. The fee for multi-family structures is less because it is typical for senior citizens to reside
in multi-family structures and they typically have less traffic.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the exemptions. Ms. Inloes stated the intent was to create a
mechanism to charge the impact fee. The intent is if a piece of property was to sit vacant for longer than
six month and then a structure was to be built on it this would invoke the impact fee. Opposite of this
would be if a piece of property has consistently contained a residence and they are expanding or replacing
this it would not invoke the impact fee. This fee will be based on building permits, and is triggered by the
permit process and not based on whether the land is vacant or occupied. Mr. Barker added this was
added and designed to create a window in which the fee could be assessed. Mr. Miller indicated the way
the language is written it could be interpreted as an exemption if the ground has been vacant for six
moths. This language seems to be opposite of the intent. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if deleting the"not"would
cover the interpretation. Ms. Mika added the intent of this provision is to correlate this with non
conforming uses.
Paul Branham added the heavy manufacturing definition is general as to high number of employees and
such. Mr. Eisenach stated this was the actual definition in the IT manual. Staff reviews each case
individually.
2
Mr. Barker stated he disagrees with the recommendation. He does not disagree with what was intended
but the language may provide for an alternative interpretation. Mr. Barker stated he thought the intent is to
have the six month time frame be a trigger to enforce the impact fee. Mr. Barker indicated the language
should be modified to address the concerns.
Discussion ensued on the language and making sure the intent is to give a six month time frame.
Michael Miller is not comfortable with acting on this without the modified language. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if
it was the advice of staff and the attorney to remove the"not"from the language and it will resolve the
issue. Ms. Mika indicated they still have concerns it will address all the issues. Mr. Barker stated he was
confused at to what the intent is so he cannot recommend one way or another. Mr. Miller recommends a
continuance to June 6, 2006 hearing.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the kennel definition. Ms. Mika stated the language is directly
from the Department of Agricultural and Animal Division and this agency makes this determination. The
State agencies define this. Ms. Mika stated staff would look into this and prepare a follow up discussion at
the next hearing.
Michael Miller moved to continue this to June 6, 2006. Doug Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1552
APPLICANT: Charles Bliss
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2W2SW4 of Section 34, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment(delivering, handling, storing and
hauling sugar beets) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 62.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1552. The site is located East of
and adjacent to County Road 43 and north of and adjacent to County Road 62. Both of these roads are
paved. The surrounding properties are agricultural in nature and there are 2 homes in close proximity to
the south. Nine referral agencies reviewed this case and seven responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. The
Department of Planning Services has received petitions objecting the proposal and the petitions have
approximately 43 signatures. One letter of opposition has been received. The Weld County Department
of Planning Services Staff is recommending approval of USR-1552. The commissioners have been
handed copies of an additional petition.
Michael Miller asked if there will be additional equipment stored on site. Ms. Lockman stated there will be
the beet piler and associated trucks but there has been nothing else indicated by the applicant but they
may be better able to address the question.
Randall Jobman, representative for the applicant, provided additional clarification. Currently the old
factory site is for sale and the intent is to relocate a piling site for the stockholders. This is a grower
owned cooperative. There are 450 stockholders with 40% of the beets raised in the area. The board and
CEO determined to sell the present site and the need is to relocate. They need to have a location to
process and haul to the Fort Morgan factory. Mr. Fitzgerald asked the distance between the existing site
and this site and how high the piles will be. Mr. Jobman stated it was approximately 2 miles and the
stacks are approximately 20 feet high.
3
Michael Miller asked if there will be any additional equipment on site. Mr. Jobman stated there will only be
the two pilers and that would be it. The front end loaders will be on site during the off load season then
will be returned to the shops. Mr. Miller asked about the shops. Mr. Jobman stated the shops will be
relocated but they will not be located on this site. Mr. Miller asked if the intention was to run lines to the
site for electricity or were there going to be generators. Mr. Jobman stated they would have quiet
generators.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the traffic and vehicle trips. Mr. Jobman stated there is an onsite
map for the pattern of traffic. Mr. Ochsner asked about the re-haul operation. Mr. Jobman stated the
rehaul would be a twenty four hours a day seven days a week operation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Howard Axelson, neighbor, indicated his concern for traffic in the area. The traffic is very fast in the area and
there is a steady stream of trucks that do not go 55 mph. The road is narrow with shoulders and ditches on
each side of the road. The prospective owners of this site do not live in the area. This is a simple farm area
and this is an inconvenience and property devaluation. This would be a disgrace to the area. The sugar
factory has far too many weeds in the off season. This will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Michael Miller asked about the amount of trucks on the roads during the season. Mr.Axelson stated there are
several trucks that come down CR 43 and this site will just increase that. This piece of ground is one of the
better pieces of ground with good water rights. Storing of beets should be a commercial site with no
residences in the area. This is a residential area.
Jim Koehler,neighbor, indicated his concerns. The traffic on the road is heavy especially with the plant that is
located a mile away. They have counted as many as 90 vehicles in one morning going down the road. There
will be trucks and other vehicles. When the ground gets muddy there will be a significant amount of drag out
onto the roads. This is not sandy ground it is heavier and more like clay. There has been traffic from
Wyoming and Nebraska on the road. The cattle and grain trucks utilize the roadway also. There are several
neighbors in the area that do not approve of this in a residential neighborhood.
Jenny Axelson, neighbor, indicated her concerns. The traffic on CR 43 and CR 64 is tremendous. This area
is used for shortcuts averse to getting onto Hwy 85. The gas plant is expanding which increases the traffic on
CR 43. The area is dangerous due to the amount of traffic.The impact is large especially with school buses
and kids in the area. There is less marginal ground that would be a better location. CR 66 and CR 64 is a
dangerous cross road due to frequent vehicles running the stop signs.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Randall Jobman added there is no intent to take this out of agricultural production. A number of sites go back
to farmable ground when the season is over. There are few acreages south of town to utilize. Those go to the
St.Vrain station. The majority of the beet acres are north of the town. There will be added traffic but the hope
is it is not substantial. The goal is to provide a central location. The growers are responsible for the
transportation. The intent was to not negatively impact the stockholders.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how this location was determined. Mr.Jobman stated they drove around the county
looking for potential sites and spoke with the owners of property. This site is good and in an area where the
water will be taken to another site. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the length of time this land will be used. Mr.
Jobman stated it was a three year contract with option to renew.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the vehicle trips and the size of the trucks. Mr.Jobman stated harvest
begins in September and finishes around November. The anticipation is 300-400 truck loads per day during
the September and October time frame. Grower's trucks will consist of twin screws with 18-20 foot boxes with
up to 42 foot boxes. All of the trucks must follow state regulations. Mr. Branham asked for clarification on the
haul out process. Mr.Jobman stated the operation goes twenty four hours a day seven days a week until the
piles are gone. This typically finishes in the January—February time frame and there could be as many as
130 loads a day.
4
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll, Department of Public Works if there was an established haul route. Mr.
Carroll stated the haul route in will be from all directions. Department of Public Works encourages the trucks
to stay on paved roads. The haul out will be to Fort Morgan so they will go east to Kersey then south to Hwy
34. Department of Public Works requires a tracking pad which helps keep all the mud and heavy soils from
being drug onto the roadways. The existing traffic count on CR 43 averages around 1250 vehicles. This is a
collector status road and there is not much of a shoulder. There are tail water ditches in the county right-of-
way and this is the reason for no shoulders. There have been no accidents at this intersection in the last five
years. The speed at the intersection is posted at 55 mph.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Jobman if they designate a specific haul route out of the facility. Mr.Jobman stated
they do not but the drivers must follow all the adequate rules.
Doug Ochsner stated the intersection to the north is a tight intersection and asked if the turn radius is
sufficient. Mr. Carroll stated all intersections are tight in the area not only at CR 62 & CR 43. Mr. Ochsner
asked the applicant if there were any concerns with the intersections and the safety of them. Mr. Jobman
stated he is no expert but there are trucks that access the roadway now.
Tom Holton asked if they looked in the area of Hwy 34 since this is where they will eventually end up. Mr.
Jobson stated they looked all along Hwy 34 for sites. There was a limited interest around the area and the
intent was to limit the impact to the stockholders. They wanted something that was close to the present site.
Mr. Holton asked where the beets come from. Mr.Jobman stated they have a certain location in which certain
stockholders deliver to. There are several locations.
Michael Miller added there is a need for this type of a facility but the compatibility is the concern. This is a
busy area especially with trucks running twenty four hours a day seven days a week for a few months. There
could have been a better location. This is not the right spot for this.
Paul Branham stated the citizens that are here and others have made good points. The increase in traffic will
be significant. This will be more than a minimal impact on the area. He agrees there could be a better
location
Doug Ochsner stated he was torn since there is a need for this type of industry. There will be a burden no
matter where it is located. With the truck arriving from every direction it will cause an affect on the surrounding
area. There is a concern for the safety on the existing roads. The roads are narrow in the area. There is a
huge need and it is important but he is not comfortable with this location.
Roy Spitzer asked about the roads and whether there was capacity or room for this. Mr.Carroll stated that CR
43 was a collector which can handle as much as 3000-5000 vehicles per day. The shoulder are narrow
because of the irrigation in the area. There is a four way stop at the intersection and there have been no
accidents. Most of the trucks that will come through the facility are tandems or farm trucks. The intersection
seems to be working. The haul out will use 18 wheelers to haul to Fort Morgan. If they go straight south they
will not need to negotiate the corners. This section of road gets a lot of traffic that drops down from Hwy 14 to
Hwy 263 as a shortcut. Mr. Spitzer asked for the traffic counts on CR 62. Mr. Carroll indicated it was a
collector also and there are approximately 162 vehicles going east west and it dead ends to the east by the
airport. There is less traffic going east to west.
Michael Miller asked if there was room for the trucks to back up on site so not to have them backed up onto
the county road. Mr. Carroll stated there was approximately 1200 feet off the county road and on site. This
would allow for several trucks on site. There is also room for the offloading of the trucks. The bottle neck
would be from the entrance to the weigh scale if there were to be one.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Carroll about the tracking pads and who is responsible for cleaning the county roads.
Mr. Carroll stated the applicant will be responsible for the clean up. Mr. Holton asked about the accidents on
Hwy 34 and Hwy 37. Mr. Carroll stated there have been multiple accidents at this location.
Randall Jobman stated he does have some questions regarding clarification on the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. Development Standards#7-#10 all deal with waste and there will be none at the
site. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, indicated those are standard conditions that
5
are added. They do not believe there will be waste so the standards are not applicable but will be there if
needed. Development Standards #13 is the same. This addresses odors and there will be none. Ms.
Lockman stated the odor abatement plan was added per the City of Greeley from their referral. There have
been odor issues in area because of the treatment facility. Staff agrees with the applicant and does not
believe there will be any odors associated with this use. Ms. Lockman stated the Development Standards
does not harm the application but it does cover the possibility of future possible odors. Mr.Jobman continued
with Development Standards #15- #16 that refers to septic system and a toilet facility is not needed.
Harvesting is done in a 3-4 week time period on rented property and bottled water and port o potties are used.
Ms. Davis stated when she reviewed this it looked like there would be a number of employees along with a
time frame. She has asked for a clearer definition of use and it will be reviewed from that. If the use will be
less than 6 month then it is considered a temporary use and they can use port o potties. Mr. Jobman stated
the plan was to get Ms. Davis a detailed email today. Ms. Davis added this will also address Development
Standards#17. Mr. Jobman asked about Development Standards#22 addressing the run off from the site.
Mr. Carroll stated this seems to be addressed.
Randall Jobman stated that if they needed to direct the haulers to avoid Hwy 37 and Hwy 34 they would do so.
Michael Miller added he believes it is reasonable to not require hand washing and toilet facilities. The
Planning Commission should amend Development Standards#15,#16,#17 to allow the use of bottled water
and port o potties.
Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standards#16, #17. Doug Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standards#15 to include"and provide bottled water". Doug
Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Sheri Lockman indicated that items 4 A&B need to be addressed also since they do relate. Ms.Davis added
she has asked for additional information regarding those conditions and is comfortable with this.
Michael Miller moved to delete items 4 A& B on page 5. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Barker stated he would ask that any motion made include all of the points in the recommendation.
Michael Miller stated he supports the sugar beet industry. It has been struggling at times but there is some
issues with this site and the fact it removes prime farm ground. It will be non productive with the lack of water
supply. The heavy use will be essentially from September to February and be twenty four hours a day seven
days a week truck traffic which is a significant burden on neighbors and there will also be significant growth in
the area. This use is not compatible with the exiting uses and there are better sites than this location.
Tom Holton agrees and is concerned with the accidents on Hwy 34 and Hwy 37. The only reason a stop light
will ever be added is when enough people parish.
Bruce Fitzgerald added this is an incompatible use in the neighborhood and a twenty four hours a day seven
days a week operation will be difficult in any neighborhood.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1552, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
6
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Michael Millers does not feel the application is in compliance with Section 22.2.60.A.1,Section 23.2.220.A.3,
and Section 23.2.220.A.4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that Section 22-2-60.A.1 promotes the Counties agricultural industry and
agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for agricultural activities. He does believe the application
does this but still has safety is a concern but overall he would support it.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1554
APPLICANT: Dennis & Erin Barkey
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4210 & Lot A of RE-4211; Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, T7N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agricultural, animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or
contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations (a Dairy
operation for a total of 900 head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 80; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 15.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1554,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The applicant would like to change two
conditions. Those conditions are Item #4 regarding the recording of the plat. The applicant is requesting a
change to 180 days. The applicant would also like to amend Development Standard#12 to reflect adhering
only to State Regulations.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many head are allowed on the site as a use by right. Mr. Mueller stated they
could have approximately 220 head.
Paul Branham asked how many existing animals are there. Mr. Mueller there are between 200-300 head on
the existing site but the acreage was at 160 acres.
Chad Auer asked about the referral from Severance and their request for a reservation of roadway on CR 80
and CR 18. Mr. Mueller stated that would be reflected the plan set.
Tom Haren, representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the project. This permit is for 900 head
on the entire site. The intent is to milk 300 head. The total of 900 will consist of milkers, dry heifers, calves
and bulls. The Barkeys have an exiting property in Windsor but are crowded. They presently have neighbors
within 1/4 mile away and have had no complaints. The additional room is for bulls. There is a waste water and
nuisance plan included in this application. The applicants must follow all state regulations. The layout for this
facility is 1200 square feet per head which is approximately twice the size of a typically designed system. The
larger footprint is for better room and access to the animals. There will be times when there is no water in the
detention pond. There is a proposed berm on the south and west sides for landscaping. The pond fits within
the setbacks from the roads. The referral from Severance was received late and the road reservation would
be agreeable to the applicants if it is warranted.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated there will be several Development Standards and conditions. A Use by Right would
allow for fewer conditions. What is the difference between USR what this will ultimately become? Mr. Haren
stated this application makes the applicant more subjected to scrutiny. Most of the dairy farmers in the area
are already doing these requirements without being prompted too. The farmers want to show the public a nice
facility. This permit adds value to property as well as being a safe guard for county.
7
Doug Ochsner asked about the tap references in the letter from North Weld County Water District. The tap
allows for a specific amount and will need to be amended once the herd grows. Is the 900 number a current
number or the number in a five year span? Mr. Haren stated the applicant has planned for growth and this is a
closed herd. The herd will grow slowly within the herd. There is a specific allotment for the taps and if the
applicant were to go over this there is a substantial fee. There are also agreements to maintain certain
pressures in the water lines. As the dairy grows the infrastructure will need to be increased, but those will
need to go hand in hand. There is no intent to put all the infrastructure in for the 900 head. Mr. Ochsner
asked if there is a head count for the date of move in. Mr. Haren indicated it was around 300-400 head.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regards to CAFO. Mr. Haren stated they are required to adhere to
Regulation 81 and Regulation 61 but those vary depending on size of the operation. In order to meet CAFO
requirements they would need to have 700 mature animals.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification with regards to the manure and whether it will be used on site or hauled
away and will there be any composting of the waste. Mr. Haren stated the manure will be applied to the site
until the future buildings occupy the area. Once those buildings are in place the manure will be hauled offsite
and used. The waste water pond is designed to be evaporative. The pond may not be utilized at certain times
of the year. Composting may be a viable option for the future. It is a good method of control for flies. It is a
good management practice.
Tom Holton asked why the stock piles are next to the road as opposed to where the hay storage is. Mr. Haren
stated there could be some flexibility on the piles but the storm water run-off needs to be contained from them.
So the piles need to be close to the ponds. The further away the piles are from the pond the more difficult it is
to collect all the water run off. There is one waste management area to manage adverse to several locations.
There is a smaller pond that will catch the water from the calf area. Mr. Holton asked what will happen if the
pond gets full. Mr. Haren stated there are other means to increase evaporation,but it will also be designed to
maintain a 10-15 year water balance. The State requires them to look at ten of the wettest years and design
for that. Mr. Holton asked about the ground to the north and will there be any runoff. Mr. Haren stated they do
not want any uncontaminated water getting onto the site. The owners to the north will need to do maintenance
of their own.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Fred Walker, representative for surrounding neighbors, indicated they would like a better understand of the
intensity of the application and the use. This land has been petitioned into the Boxelder Sanitation District.
The original farm was 160 acres and the irrigation water has been sold off and there are deed restrictions on
the whole corridor that does not allow for future irrigation of land, it must be dried up. This does not preserve
prime agricultural land, it cannot be irrigated. The original farm was acceptable as well as the intensity. The
neighbors would like to have meeting with the applicants because the neighbors believe the intensity is too
great. The larger pond on CR 80 and CR 15 is a concern especially for odors. The odor will be more
intensified on a smaller acreage. The neighbors do not object to the diary but it encompasses the entire 55
acres. This seems to be more of an industrial use rather than agricultural use. The other concern is the
possibility of a future user milking the entire 900 head. There will be land in the future that will be dried up.
Boxelder Sanitation is placing a sewer line in the area for possible future development. There will be a lift
station for the entire basin. The future use is what the land owners are looking forward to. There is about a
two mile strip that the City of Thornton owns. Those lands will be dried up also. There are 700 acres in the
Boxelder Sanitation District. There does not seem to be enough mitigation to allow this to go forward,
therefore, the reason for a meeting with the neighbors. The pond at CR 80 &CR 15 is a concern and this is
not a not a good location. The major concern is the possible future owners of the site and the possibility of
them being able to milk all 900 head.
Tom Moore, neighbor and managing general partner for K&M Partnership, indicated his concerns. The
intensity is the concern. The original owners had 150 acres and they split the land into four parcels. The
Barkey's have two of the lots with several more animals in the acreage. Development is coming to this area.
There is room for dairy operations further east on Hwy 85. This is a lose lose situation for the neighbors. A
sewer line is being brought to the area from 1-25 and development will happen in the area. This could be a
situation that may not be good for anyone including the applicant.
8
The Chair closed the public portion
Tom Haren indicated that the intensity of the use could not be better located than on an existing dairy. The
intensity will not change; the entire site was not used historically. The historical size for cattle pens was 3-4
acres and that intensity turns out to be approximately 100 head per acre. The 900 head on 55 acres actually
works out better with a smaller number of animals per pen being better. The Barkey's have been managing a
facility around Windsor with no complaints. The break down is much smaller per head at the present facility.
The design for this facility is much larger. A typical design utilized 600 feet of space per head while this site
will be using 1200 feet per head. This equates to 16 cows per acre. There have been cases of 10,000 head
on 160 acres which is 62 head per acre. This is a better situation than what has been there. There were no
lagoons before so where did water do at that time? There were no environmental controls at that time. There
is development along the Front Range. It will come and the land value will increase and they can sell and
move on at that time. There will need to be a lot of future development to affect this site. This makes the land
also appealing due to possible future value. The county sets rules and patterns of where they want to see
development and then try and direct the growth there.
Chad Auer asked if there were assurances that the Department of Planning Services has that would not allow
for a more intensive use in the future. Mr. Haren stated that anything in addition to the 900 head would require
an amendment to the USR. The family debated on the pen size and it came down to cleanliness of the
animals. Finally, the ratio and infrastructure would be irregular. This is what the family wanted to do. The
additional expense would be irregular for someone else to do. Mr.Auer asked about changing Development
Standard#12 and the rational to that. Mr. Haren indicated the applicant will comply with the State regulations;
this is more of a technical process issue. This limits the applicant to this even if the regulations change. Mr.
Haren added that it would be acceptable if Development Standard #12 was worded like Development
Standards#13. Mr.Swain, Department of Public Health and Environment,added that Regulation 2 does not
apply to any type of agricultural in the state except for the hog farms. Historically the 15-1 odor standards
have been added to the USR. The language calls out the method of measurement and nothing more. The
conditions may be redundant but those are the ones staff has the most concerns about; therefore he would
prefer not to change the language.
Doug Ochsner asked if the neighbors will experience any odors from the lagoons or stock piles and what is
the regulations that will apply to them. Mr. Swain stated the odor standard is nuisance based. They try to
establish levels to control the nuisance as a way to control.
Bruce Barker added the odor is measured with the method set forth in Regulation 2. "Pursuant to"suggests
that the Regulation will need to be followed and this is not the intention. Mr.Swain indicated that would be fine
with the Department of Public Health and Environment to modify the language.
Michael Miller moved to amend the language in Development Standard #12 by deleting "pursuant to" and
replacing it with "using the methods set forth in". Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Haren added they would like to amend item#4 from 30(thirty)days to 180 (one-hundred eighty)days.
There are several conditions that must be adhered to so the extra time will be needed. Department of
Planning Services is in agreement with this.
Chad Auer moved to amend the above referenced language. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Haren indicated the applicant is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval.
9
Tom Holton asked for clarification on bunk space and stated the question seems to be the number that will be
milked. Mr. Haren stated the bunk space is for 300 head which is all that will be milked. A dairy parlor can
only take so many at a time. Mr. Holton suggested getting together with neighbors to possibly mitigate their
concerns with the number that will be milked. They do not want to see an operation of 900 milkers. Mr.
Holton added it might be better to put a specific limit on those. Mr. Holton added the other concern he has is
the lagoon and if it ever gets too much water in there how it will be addressed. Mr. Haren stated the pond can
be aerated along with some biological chemicals that will try and de-sludge the pond.
Brad Mueller added"staff wants to make sure the record as we understand it right now is that the limits then
on the property would be for 900 and for 300 head milkers unless the applicant speaks otherwise. That is
what the application stated." Mr. Haren added that is what the application stated. Mr.Mueller added that once
again that that would be a limit of 300. Mr. Holton asked if this was in the Development Standards. Mr.Haren
stated it was in the record. Mr. Mueller stated "we can for the Board's comfort add that to what would be
essentially Design Standard Number One." Mr. Barker stated it could be modified in the third line. Mr. Haren
stated that historically the county has predicated all of the zoning on the number of noses not specifically what
kind. With the size of the facility in the area and what was there, this is a very small operation. This
application has 900 head on 55 acres whereas the previous dairy had 300 head on 3-4 acres.
Paul Branham asked if they agree to the 300 head. Mr. Haren stated that was what is in the application and
what must be adhered to according to the comments by staff.
Paul Branham asked if this was approved"as is"and the applicant wants to increase that what is the process.
Mr. Mueller stated the applicant will provide additional information and it will be determined by staff if a
substantial change exists. If this exists it will need to go before the Planning Commission again.
Discussion ensued on limiting the number of milk cows and whether it should be allowed. The limitation is in
the application.
Michael Miller stated this had not been done historically and is not necessary. The applicant should have the
ability to increase the number if technology allows without changing the intensity of the use. Mr. Miller would
hesitate to regulate especially since it has been explained that the parlor determines the number the applicant
can milk. The intention is on the record. Mr. Auer added that there could be a possibility that the number
could go to 900 but that would take some doing but it is possible. Mr. Miller stated that if they increase to 500
would that change the impact on the surrounding community enough to warrant an amendment. They
application is not going to want to truck animals back and forth to keep the dry cows at one place the bulls and
another and the milking cows here. There can be some king of possibility with any application that comes
before the Planning Commission.
Paul Branham agrees that it is clear what is intended on both the application and by the applicant but it would
be appropriate to have a clear Development Standard amended to read"900 head with maximum of 300 milk
cows."
Tom Holton agrees with Mr. Branham that it is in the application and not in the standards but he does not feel
comfortable giving 300 as a limit but there needs to be something. Mr. Branham added the applicant has set
the number as 300 and if they want to increase that number the will need to come back. Mr. Holton asked if
they only went up fifty they would need to come back.
Doug Ochsner indicated the main issue is whether this is a dairy or not. Whether they are milking the cow or it
is dry,99%of the people driving by are not gong to care. That does not affect the land use an animal will still
be there. Mr. Holton added the concern is odors. With a milking cow there is more of a potential use from
that animal. A dry lot cow does not get the same type feed.
Michael Miller stated he does not see the applicant as being capable to increase with the facilities that are on
site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated 900 are 900 no matter what kind of cow it is.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standards #1 to limit the number of 300 milking cows. Paul
Branham seconded.
10
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, no; Michael Miller, no; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, no, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Don Carroll added that the applicant is agreeable with Department of Public Works conditions but they would
like more information on the lagoon especially with the berming and the site distance. There could be a
request for additional right-of-way to be shown on the plat. Staff can work on before the Board of County
Commissioners. AASTO standards have been printed for applicant.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1554, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented he is concerned about the future use. He typically votes in favor on the issues that
reflect Section 22-2-60.A regarding the support of policies to support agricultural land. The applicant is doing
this and they have the right to. The property owner should have the ability to choose the highest and best use
for their own property. The concern is the manure and lagoons being on the borders of the property. If those
two items were not there he would be in support of this. Those two items will negatively affect the future use
for the neighbors. If those two items could be discussed with the neighboring land owners and moved the
application is valid. There is another concerns with the water being removed from the land and by doing this
the neighboring property will be the first to develop. That can be mitigated with possible landscaping. He is
voting"no" but there could be some mitigation to change the vote.
Tom Holton commented he has a problem with the location of the lagoon and the manure stockpile. It can be
an issue in the future. Before this goes to the Board of County Commissioners he suggests the applicant get
together with the surrounding land owners and discusses this issue.
Michael Miller commented he believes this application meets the standards of Section 22-2-60.A regarding the
agricultural zone as intended. He also believes it supports Section 22-2-220.A.2, Section 23-2-220.A.3,
Section 23-2-220.A.6 and Section 23-2-220.A.7. Both the applicant and the land owners need to get together
to discuss the locations of the lagoon and manure pile.
Paul Branham commented there is an existing dairy and the applicant has the experience. They have
adequately addressed all the concerns.
Chad Auer commented he believes the neighbors and the applicants need to get together possibly before the
Board of County Commissioners.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented he has voted to approve two dairy within two miles of his house. There is no
problem from his house. He appreciates the management practices. All the issues have been mitigated with
the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm
Respectfully submitted
\) Mice.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
11
Hello